Or operate the triode common grid by feeding the cathode from a jfet buffer.
Remove "buffer" and you've got a cascode. Great for phono, maybe overkill for line.
Rather meeting subjective taste of individuals than accurate acoustic reproduction.
You are one of a few amp designer who share measurement of the acoustic side. However, what you said is what is happening, "marketing über alles". "Fidelity" is used with nothing to show for the acoustic. People are brainwashed that they listen to audio at ppm level distortion by promoting nice numbers while suppressing the inconvenient truth ...
Sad really, holds back potential on improvement.
What do you make of Earl's assertion about distortion here? https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...m-spl-low-distortion-2-a-350.html#post5935251
As usual, he talked about listener perception on amp distortion and speaker distortion and none distortionwise on how both links of the chain interact in producing output. I asked a few years ago and my impression seems to be that he wants nothing to do with the dependency of distortion of the acoustic output on how an amp drives the speaker, simply beyond his nice cup of tea.
Matt, I disagree strongly with Earl's asserrtion. I can give you a concrete example. My present project is a pair of speakers with two small midrangers in a d'Appolito configuration. After having dialed them in, something was definitively not right, which also caused the stereo imaging to be less precise than I am used to. Distortion measurements showed, that one of the four mid-drivers had a distortion spike of about 1% around 1kHz. Replacing it solved the problem.
So yes, 1% distortion in 1 driver in a multiway loudspeaker is absolutely audible, lowering loudspeaker distortion remains a worthwhile design goal. FR, dispersion and distortion are holy triad for me in loudspeaker design.
So yes, 1% distortion in 1 driver in a multiway loudspeaker is absolutely audible, lowering loudspeaker distortion remains a worthwhile design goal. FR, dispersion and distortion are holy triad for me in loudspeaker design.
I don't understand why Earl's so dogmatic about it, but then if you read his posts or have watched his videos it's his style, dare I say, not unusual from those trying to sell stuff, I include ideas, which is all it seems to be. http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Papers/AES06Gedlee_ll.pdf
Last edited:
This forum does drive people into a corner on some threads with the audio faith vs actual science ratio. You can only be polite and write long, carefully considered responses for so long before you realise you are fighting a losing battle.
Anyway he doesn't sell speakers any more. He has retired.
So does anyone have any non-anecdotal evidence that shows Earl is wrong? And wrong against his full statements, not just a few words plucked out? Honest question as he at least has done listening tests, even if Jakob would not consider them good enough.
Anyway he doesn't sell speakers any more. He has retired.
So does anyone have any non-anecdotal evidence that shows Earl is wrong? And wrong against his full statements, not just a few words plucked out? Honest question as he at least has done listening tests, even if Jakob would not consider them good enough.
Sometimes I think he gets tired, but glad he contributes here, he's helped my understanding on a number of occasions, don't get me wrong, I think he's one of the good guys and often goes out of his way to help. I can take the rough with the smooth (usually) Obviously Linkwitz has studied the audibility of distortion quite extensively.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.